Philosophic Phail

  Is YouTube a viable outlet for philosophy, and philosophical discussion?

  To answer that question, I think we must first examine the motives and methods of community content providers, then we must address common complaints concerning the medium, and last we must ask ourselves what the philosophers of old would think of the entire mess.

  It has been my observance that the more prominent philosophers of YouTube tend to make hundreds of videos in a repetitive stream of rhetoric designed to reinforce the follower’s adherence to like philosophy, or to sway the unbelievers to adopt the provider’s philosophy. While the practice may be effective for attracting the attentions of new recruits with like-minded interests, it should send a red flag to established followers and serious philosophers

  Simply put, if it takes a thousand videos to restate and reinforce an argument that can be made with one, than the philosophy is broken.

  And if the content provider has to resort to making thousands of videos to achieve a failed outcome, than the motives of the provider come into question.

  The YouTube philosopher may have a pathological need to see themselves on the internet. They may choose the gratification of virtual confrontation, rather than establish complex social interactions outside of the conscriptions of the internet.

  The YouTube provider may prefer the internet, as they can willfully abuse and express antisocial behavior, without the threat of physicality.

  And while there are plenty of YouTube channels dedicated to Philosophy, Politics, Science, Mathematics, and Arts, many providers feel threatened by YouTube and it’s advertisements. They believe that they will be censored by YouTube’s management…or by other YouTube providers. Current suggested solutions include the creation of aggregate sites and YouTube styled co-operatives. These site creators propose to curtail censorship by limiting what content can be applied to their sites.

  “Huh?”

  True, some debaters don’t really want to debate; they just want to win popularity or monetary gain. Some YouTube philosophers are more concerned with winning people over, than addressing the issues they claim to be concerned with.

  To say that YouTube is cluttered with tens of thousands of inane and utterly useless entries, is an understatement. To posit that there are too many dumb animal videos and low quality prank articles may be a valid point.

  But who decides how many are too many?

  Who is the arbiter of such decisions?

  At what point are too many philosophical videos just as bad as too many cat trick videos?

  Personally, I do not think that the likes of Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Descartes, or Aurelius would wish to censor the conversation. Further, I don’t think they would be flattered by a generation of philosophers who waste time mulling over the same arguments made in their time.

Assuming that Mitt Romney does win the Republican nomination Obama will be into head to head debates with him about the economy. Yes, the old Clinton rule, “It’s the economy, stupid,” has never been more true.

The UK Conservative Party did not win the last election and has been forced to govern in coaltion with the slightly left of centre party, the Liberal Democrats. Right from the off the Conservatives have insisted that the first priority is to cut the deficit.

This has given them cover to make all the government spending cuts they want anyway – but normally would hesitate to make because they are desperate to lose their “Nasty” party image.

So there have been benefit cuts, cuts in government spending leading to huge unemployment, and an attack on the highly popular National health Service. Their aim is to privatise it, create a two tier service with a basic service free – plus a comprehensive insurance funded service for the better off. Health service companies are licking their lips at the prospect.

But a major Conservative priority, like the Reagan/Bush Presidencies, is to cut taxes for the rich. The argument will be familiar - and just as phoney – to many US voters. The rich need tax cuts as incentives to create business and jobs, the less well off need tax rises to ”encourage” them.

So Chancellor Osborne stood up in Parliament and announced a cut in the top rate of tax. Prime Minister David Cameron and his Cabinet, together with the rest of the Conservatives cheered. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, looked on feeling a bit sick as he wondered how he was going to sell this one to his party. But voters have written him off anyway as weak and spineless.

When Opposition Leader Ed Milliband stood up to make his response he was in desperate need of a good performance. He has not so far impressed as Leader of the Labour Party, UK version of the Democrats.   

He took his chance and gave President Obama a demonstration of how to cope with continuing calls for ever more benefits for the rich. Milliband stood up and looked at the line of Cabinet Ministers opposite, every single one of them, Llike Romney a millionaire.

He labelled Osborne’s policies a Millionaires Budget. He looked them in the eye and said, “Put your hands up if you benefit from this budget. You and You and You,” he said pointing to them one by one as they shuffled uneasily in their sets. They all stand to gain around $50,000 a year – while taxes have just risen for the retired and benefits for lower earners have been cut.

It was simple and effective. The Millionaires Budget tag has stuck and Milliband went on to make another telling point. Right at the beginning, making the point that the economy was in a mess, Osborne said there would have to be sacrifices but “We’re all in this together.” Milliband observed that Osborne had spoken for over an hour – but at no point repeated that phrase. For obvious reasons.

He ended with a crack about the Downton Abbey TV series, saying “We all know it’s a soap opera. You lot think it’s a documentary.” He got a big laugh and Obama could do the same.

Further, she observed that the electoral reverses would have no adverse impact on the United Progressive Alliance government. Asked about the possibility of early general elections, the Congress president declared: “We’re in 2012, and Manmohan Singh will continue to be the Prime Minister till 2014.”

Talking of “weak” candidates, the Congress president and the office-bearers authorised by her alone should be held responsible for their selection. Under the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the party president and such office-bearers authorised by the president alone can issue Form B to notify a Returning Officer about a party’s candidate and the allotment of its election symbol to him or her. Without the forms duly signed on behalf of the party, nobody can enter a contest.

In the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, the Congress had an alliance with the Rashtriya Janata Dal. There were 355 Congress candidates in the field, of whom only 25 won.

In the 2002 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, there were 402 Congress candidates to win 25 seats. In 334 places they lost their security deposit. In the 2007 elections, the Congress contested in 393 seats, to succeed in 22; it lost the deposit in 323 places.

All these three rounds of election took place in this largest State of India, in terms of population, under the same party president — Sonia Gandhi.

However, in the latest round of Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, all the Congress candidates fielded in the five Assembly segments in the Rae Bareli parliamentary constituency were defeated. Though Sonia Gandhi had topped in terms of the number of votes polled in all these Assembly segments in the 2004 and 2009 general elections, it was a washout for the Congress candidates there. Within Rahul Gandhi’s Amethi parliamentary constituency, only two candidates reached the winning post.

The election symbol of the Congress is the hand, with five fingers spread out. In Uttar Pradesh, each parliamentary constituency has five segments. In Rae Bareli, all the five fingers of the hand were cut off, and in Amethi three were lost.

The Congress president has since asserted that the election outcomes in Uttar Pradesh and the other States would have no impact on the UPA government, but she has failed to assess the reverse impact of the misrule of UPA-II on the long-suffering people of disadvantaged sections throughout India, with scam after scam involving the loss of mind-boggling sums of money, widespread corruption percolating from the ruling authority in Delhi, astounding audit revelations, forthright judicial expositions, fall in rupee value, spiralling prices of food articles and commodities of common consumption, and rising unemployment levels. The incompetence of the Union government is manifest. A tongue-tied Prime Minister appears to be helpless in taking action against any wrongdoing Minister, under the peculiar cult of “coalition dharma.”

When the oppressed millions got the ballot under the scarce “democratic dharma,” they have hit hard at the Rajas, the Rahuls, and their minions parading as MPs and Ministers. It was the fury of the masses that crushed the ambitious targets fixed by Congress leaders.

The overall polling percentages in the five States have risen in 2012 compared to those recorded in 2007. Moreover, in every State concerned, the number of women voters coming to vote surpassed that of the men voters.

The aftermath of the decisive downfall of the Congress in the Assembly election round has severely affected the coherence of the alliance; some of the partners seem to be even trying to distance themselves from the government.

Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister is helpless and hopeless when it comes to tackling critical situations. Take, for instance, the removal of Dinesh Trivedi as Railway Minister. Let us not be concerned here with the merits or demerits of the budget proposals. The Cabinet had accepted his proposals and the Prime Minister also appreciated his work. The Prime Minister showed hesitation in the matter until the president of the alliance party in question vehemently insisted that the Minister should go.

It was after much deliberation that the Constituent Assembly decided to adopt the British model of Cabinet government. On the essence of the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had asserted: “One principle is that no person shall be nominated to the Cabinet except on the advice of the Prime Minister. Secondly, no person shall be retained as a member of the Cabinet, if the Prime Minister says he shall be dismissed … As I said, collective responsibility can be achieved only through the instrumentality of the Prime Minister.”

The times have of course changed. The Prime Minister today has no authority as envisaged by Dr. Ambedkar. Whether it is Raja or Trivedi, he has to be instructed by the party president concerned. The Cabinet system of governance as devised and accepted by the Constitution is not being followed. We have a Cabinet without a competent Prime Minister, and a Prime Minister without an effective government.

The writing on the wall is clear. But Sonia Gandhi as Congress president and Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister are not able to decipher it. But some wise Daniel will come along to lead the people against this “Organised Hypocrisy” — as Disraeli called an incompetent government.

Oftentimes, it is the politicians themselves who have not demonstrated ethical ways of responding to different opinions. During the 2012 presidential political debates when Rick Santorum accused Mitt Romney at flip flopping on economic issues, the latter offered a $10,000 bet that he was right and his opponent was wrong. Gambling or betting to prove that an opinion is right or wrong is not the correct way to manage the opinions of others.

In fact, many would say that opinions can not be managed but got to be tolerated such as any disagreement. However, toleration of opinions in the political arena or in everyday living does not manage what other has to say about an issue. Differing opinions should be tolerated and respected and not pushed to get agreement in an effort to win a gamble or a bet.

So it can be intelligently deduced that to manage the opinion of others, a respectful response is much more adequate especially on controversial topics. As in the 2012 presidential debates, one can attempt to persuade the opinions of the voters but more often it is the candidates’ deeds and what they accomplished that will speak and sway votes.

A respectful response to manage the differing opinions of others is to simply say that the statement is understandable and that the opinion is appreciated and then offer your opinion on the same issue. If the issue is controversial as most issues are, then it is best to listen respectfully to the opinion and then with facts and figures persuade the audience if that was the basis for the dialogue.

When in the midst of differing opinions and the debate or discussion seem to be overwhelming then self control and calmness is also an important response to the sometimes negative verbal stimuli. It was the mayor of New York during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack who quoted Winston Churchill when he had to confront mayhem and chaos with rational decisions. The mayor said that Mr. Churchill stated that in the midst of unexpected circumstances the best reaction is to stay calm to make the right decision.

To manage the opinions of others moderators and managers has to be able to manage their own opinions foremost. Respect for the opponents opinions and self controlled calmness without irrationalities is the best course of action of managing one’s own opinions and most likely debates or business meetings will not spiral out of control.

Moderators or managers whose job is to listen to different opinions before making a political or business decision needs to have the the succint ability to manage the opinions of others, themselves as well as responders to discussions in everyday life.

Oftentimes, it is the politicians themselves who have not demonstrated ethical ways of responding to different opinions. During the 2012 presidential political debates when Rick Santorum accused Mitt Romney at flip flopping on economic issues, the latter offered a $10,000 bet that he was right and his opponent was wrong. Gambling or betting to prove that an opinion is right or wrong is not the correct way to manage the opinions of others.

In fact, many would say that opinions can not be managed but got to be tolerated such as any disagreement. However, toleration of opinions in the political arena or in everyday living does not manage what other has to say about an issue. Differing opinions should be tolerated and respected and not pushed to get agreement in an effort to win a gamble or a bet.

So it can be intelligently deduced that to manage the opinion of others, a respectful response is much more adequate especially on controversial topics. As in the 2012 presidential debates, one can attempt to persuade the opinions of the voters but more often it is the candidates’ deeds and what they accomplished that will speak and sway votes.

A respectful response to manage the differing opinions of others is to simply say that the statement is understandable and that the opinion is appreciated and then offer your opinion on the same issue. If the issue is controversial as most issues are, then it is best to listen respectfully to the opinion and then with facts and figures persuade the audience if that was the basis for the dialogue.

When in the midst of differing opinions and the debate or discussion seem to be overwhelming then self control and calmness is also an important response to the sometimes negative verbal stimuli. It was the mayor of New York during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack who quoted Winston Churchill when he had to confront mayhem and chaos with rational decisions. The mayor said that Mr. Churchill stated that in the midst of unexpected circumstances the best reaction is to stay calm to make the right decision.

To manage the opinions of others moderators and managers has to be able to manage their own opinions foremost. Respect for the opponents opinions and self controlled calmness without irrationalities is the best course of action of managing one’s own opinions and most likely debates or business meetings will not spiral out of control.

Moderators or managers whose job is to listen to different opinions before making a political or business decision needs to have the succinct ability to manage the opinions of others, themselves as well as responders to discussions in everyday life.

I would never tell anyone they are wrong since it is a personal belief, but the way I see it is If we evolved… should we not have gotten better with time? 

These Apes we have apparently evolved from,. at birth are able to move, communicate, comprehend basic survival,  hold their heads up etc.. yet humans at birth are not able to do any of the above even remotely close to the ability of our so called past life. 

So during this debate I was asked “if you don’t believe in the story from the bible (Adam and eve) and you don’t believe in Evolution…  how did we become here on earth?”     quite frankly I’ve never actually thought about where we had come from,  I was always a bit more concerned about where we were going.  But this question had got me thinking. 

My answer actually surprised myself.  the possibility of my answer and it being something I had never thought of before surprised me and has actually made me think more and more about it. so here is my brief thought on where we came from:

So they say they have other live able plants in other solar systems around ours.  They have found Planets with the same molecules and structure as earth. Who is to say that that is not where we came from..or that is where we will be going.  If you were the government officials of the world and you knew the state of the world is at risk and basically beyond help (as ours is) We are using up all our natural resources which allot are non replenish able, we are spreading illness and war, and pollution.  Who is to say that years ago when “Earth” first started we were once that new found Planet..  now I know this sounds bizarre but really think about this. 

If  you were the world leaders and you were aware of the state of the world,  and found a new planet that is so similar to the one we have.  Would you not want to start a new planet.  would you not secretly send people to that planet and get it started.   

Now keep in mind this is just my brain working to defend my lack of belief in evolution at 4am.  

To my theory i received the rebuttal “there would be paper trail if that happened”  

really? , I said .. Like how there’s all this paper trail of all these “UFO” sightings or alien sightings etc.  the public is so unaware of things that go on behind government doors.  and if they were arranging some interplanetary transportation would you honestly tell the public that only few people would be selected to go to survive. and start new.   That would turn into a mass chaos and fight for survival.  

He stopped .. and went quiet.  end of debate.  

He then decided to challenge my thoughts on religion… sometimes the boy just doesn’t learn when to give up.

The image of a sailor of the “Navy” which in 1945 celebrated the end of World War II in the Pacific kissing a nurse at the crossroads of Times Square New York, a prominent part of American iconography. Distilled black and white patriotism, military sacrifice and emotion of the soldiers return home. With the recent abolition of remaining restrictions for homosexuals and lesbians to serve openly in the ranks of the Pentagon, military rituals such (”homecoming”) are posing a striking debate in the U.S. before the effusive reunions same-sex couples. Controversy in which the scandal of some admixture with repeated demands for complete legalization of marriage “gay.”

Sheriff Paul Babeu Allegedly Threatened His Ex-lover of Expulsion

The most commented picture, reaching the height of viral through Facebook, has recently been starring Brandon Morgan, Sergeant of Marines. After serving a six-month target killed in Afghanistan, the soldier has returned home safely on 22 February. And in an image taken by a friend and has been around the world, embracing the military is in a hangar in Hawaii to its giant boyfriend, identified as Dalan Wells.

Five months after the Obama administration has ended the policy, known as “do not ask, do not tell”, which was forced from the Clinton to hide their sexual orientation of gays and lesbians to serve the Armed Forces U.S. Sergeant Morgan, California 25 years, thanked all the positive messages of support received through the page “Gay Marine” of Facebook.

According to the explanations of this Marine officer, “my partner and I have not done this to make us famous, or something like that, we did it because after three foreign destinations and four years of knowing, finally we said what we felt each other. ” For Morgan, “gay, straight, lesbian, no matter who you are, love is love.” With the specification that the gay community “does not want more rights or more rights, just equal rights.”
Turning point

Last December, another American naval officer also had the opportunity to make history with a kiss to her companion. After eighty days onboard the amphibious assault ship “USS Oak Hill,” Marissa Gaeta bought fifty ballot papers in one of those contests traditional “first kiss”, in which the crew raffle that privilege in return for small donations to celebrate, for example, a Christmas party for their children. Gaeta bought fifty tickets for a dollar. And he won.

The famous image of 1945 in Times Square

Naked Girls Protest in Davos World Economic Forum

Upon arriving at their base in Norfolk, and with the support of their peers as acknowledged by their commander, Gaeta, in uniform, was expected by the officer Citlalic Snell, dressed for the occasion in jeans and black leather jacket. And as the story of a local newspaper: “His girlfriend was waiting two years ago when Gaeta landed. They kissed. People cheered them concreada. And with that, one vestige of the policy that forced gays to serve his country in secret was gone. “

In fact, these two images of kisses “that have resonated throughout the world” are being presented as a turning point on the perception of homosexuality in American society, within and outside the military. Without missing pressures that President Obama does not expect to win a possible second term to recognize civil marriage to same-sex couples.

When compact disc players came out, I was still listening to Alice Coopers Muscle of Love on my 8-track.

When the Roland, Korg, and Yamaha programmable synthesizers came out, I was rocking an Arp Axxe and a Hohner Pianette-T.

For economic reasons, as well as product familiarity, I found that I often had to compete with musicians who had the latest gear. I found that I had to make due with what I had, and that experience taught me to be innovative and resourceful.

It also taught me to keep my cool in chaotic and trying situations.

Needless to say, I ended up destroying a lot of the equipment I meant to save, but my endeavors granted me a deeper understanding of electronics, mathematics, manufacturing, and the construction of soundwaves.

It taught me that it is better to save my money to buy the good synthesizers, and to remember that the instruments are just machines.

Machines break down. Machines need to be cared for. And any machine operator should be respectful of the machines they are using.

Having mentioned the above, I came to computers and digital media in the same fashion. I bought some clunky models with crappy software, and soon learned to either cheat, or destroy the systems I had purchased. With each mishap, my knowledge grew exponentially.

Aware of my stunted mathematics abilities, and my tenuous grasp on computer code and machine language, I saved for better computers, and I set out to purchase programs that were equipped with templates and cheats that would allow me to mimmick the work of experienced programmers.

I do not feel guilty about cheating the system, as I have always been more of an artist than a technician, and I am proficient at my art.

Sure, it would be great to know all of the codes, but that will come in time, and sometimes knowing all of the answers can make the art suffer.

I came into the game late, but I am starting to leave my digital mark on the internet. I am involved with several social groups and blogs, which address many causes and activities.

I enjoy the electrical buzz of all the young minds and old minds who scar and shape the digital landscape. They carve and mold their identities into the system…into the digital world.

So many great minds. So many smart people.

So many imbeciles.

With the unprotected and unrestricted flow of infinite information, comes the endless surge of angry antagonists; eager to crash the systems of civility and established metaphor.

Now even “nerds” can be bullies, and in some way that is a good thing, as it levels the playing field for “physical” bullies who try to fit in the internet social scene.

But, some take it to the next level; pretending to debate the unimportant, or solve the mysteries of the universe, through a series of public rants meant to embarrass anyone who has a differing opinion from their own.

A few months ago, I was sent a video from one such philosophaster. The person seemed funny and very intellectual…as a comedian, so I joined his new site (which, apparently, I can’t quit unless I am thrown out), Vloggerdome.

The creator of Vloggerdome, Gary Mosher (InMendham/DoNotGod), is a New Jersey resident who is known for his rambling stream of consciousness walk and talk rants, and his mantra: “Life Sucks!”

Sure, inane comments like “life sucks” isn’t really much of a philosophy…but, DON’T TELL HIM THAT!

There are probably as many reasons not to join Gary’s site, as there are to join…I mean, he has an eclectic cast of supporting characters, some are quite brilliant, while others….

So, I post this for all of the rude people; all of the bullies; all of the dime store debaters who think they know everything, and for all of the people who may want to add to the discussion, or trash on the bullies.

Remember, they asked for it, so don’t hold back.

Even misanthropic miscreants need attention.

If you should find yourself bored, or just looking to kick some intellectual ass ( I do not claim to be an intellectual ), look me up on Vloggerdome.

Meet me in the dome, subscribe to my channel, or send a friend request. I will turn away no one, no matter how crazy, delusional, or socially inept. I need more writers in there to coordinate my strike plan.

All eccentrics welcome.

The site is free, and neither I, nor any of the other members are paid to bash each other. There are no pop-ups, and very few banner ads…which are contained in a single page.

MAIN PAGE: http://vloggerdome.com/

And if you should wish to friend or debate or beat up on me in the dome: http://inmendham.com/cb/upload/watch_vid eo.php?v=15R8SU5NWSR8

Let me state that it is my opinion that what is happening in America is no longer my problem. I did not create the circumstances where candidates with no morality and/or ethics are the the candidates for the republican nomination. I have been very vocal about the need for candidates that can be trusted.

However, I still have opinions to offer. There is no way a Mormon is going to get the Christian vote. You can get upset about this reality. However, it is just that, reality.

Christians also will not vote for a Catholic who attacks their brothers and sisters in faith. Mr. Santorum will not get the support of Protestants, Methodist, Episcopalians, Baptist, and Southern Baptist because of his remarks that Protestants have lost their moral center. These groups do not believe in lighting candles to statues of saints or praying the rosary.

Now, should religion influence a person’s vote. I believe that I have the right to set my criteria for choosing a candidate. As long as my criteria dose not involve something as irrational as believing in martians my right to my criteria cannot be questioned.

The reality that of the remaining four Mr. Newt Gingrich has the greatest chance of beating Obama. Santorum had a good chance. However, as soon as he started walking away from his previous religious remarks, he has showed the voters that he is just as guilty as others on saying anything to get elected. I would of preferred he owned all his words and showed he had some integrity.

In the last analysis it has to be understood that the remaining last four candidates are poor candidates. These candidates need to be scrapped and a broker convention is necessary. Romney is still at 27% approval. He has not gained any points since 2008. Newt is correct that Santorum is to inexperienced to be president in such a crucial time in American history. Unfortunately, Mr. Gingrich has shown us that we cannot trust him. Don’t even ask me about the lunatic Ron Paul. I just cannot be cerebral and academic in evaluating such a joke of a person.

Therefore, I nominate Sarah Palin in a brokered convention for the republican nomination for President with Michelle Bachmann as her Vice President. Now, many may say I have gone crazy. However, real and honest conservatives have had little to do with the candidates that are left. Sick republican politics, Special Interest, liberal devious ploys, and the agenda-driven- liberal media are the reason these four candidates are left.

Conservatives have to ask them selves, “whose country is this any way”. Is it the country of the republican establishment, Special Interest, and agenda-driven-liberal media or is the country of the people of America?

There is going to be a debate tonight. I will not watch. However, I think it is time this candidates set a vision for America conservatives can fall in love with today and real, substantial, strategies that will lead to personal success for Americans.

I do not mind if ATT and Apple Inc succeed. However, I am concerned about the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of my fellow Americans.

There is no success in playing Robbing Hood. I meant to spell “robbing”, as in robber. That is all Obama is in life. He has stolen America’s legacy. He has robbed people of their confidence, self-esteem, and faith.

What else you could you expect from a person who avoided the National Day of Prayer function in his first year as president and now uses this event to preach Obama Liberation Theology? Mr. Obama the bible quote to those who a lot has been given a lot is expected has to do with talent, not sharing the wealth. At least know what you are talking about before you open your mouth and show the world your ignorance.

The parable of the master who gives three servants 3 pence is also about talent. Those who helped Jesus reach more lost souls acted correctly. The person who never talked to any one, ie hid his earnings in the earth, acted incorrectly. Jesus teaches you his mission and expects you to help him reach the lost.

This is why so many people should leave teaching the King James bible to those who God him self has appointed as his prophets. Mr. Barack Hussein Obama God has not ordained you as one of his prophets. I know this fact because no prophet of Jehovah would claim that the sermon on the mount is about “homosexual love”.

Mr Hussein why do you not quote the bible verse about neither… lovers of men… will inherit the Kingdom of God when talking about homosexual marriage. How about you mentioning the 10th commandment when talking about illegal immigration.

Look American traditionalist you have to decide if you are in control or other people are in control of you. Choose one of the last four remaining republican candidates and you have decided to let others tell you what to do in life. Choose a brokered convention and you will let all of them know you are in charge and in control. Any other result will be the death of the USA.

In closing I have decided what I am going to call my political party society. It will the American Traditionalist Party. It will exist to support candidates for political office who have honor and integrity in upholding American Traditional values.